They had threats leveled at several locations, particularly Scotland I believe, and hence the cancellation of the rest of them.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stipulating that there were probably various people either threatening to respond with violence or joking about it (the latter I know for sure)...
I'm not sure it's ironic.
The "want to legalize rape" thing was a trollish, deliberately absurd argument based on mock outrage against the straw man argument that "if two people are drunk and have sex, and one of them is a woman, she was raped". "Unable to legally consent" is too subtle a concept for the likes of ROK to grapple with, so they oversimplify it to "if two people are drunk and one of them is a woman, she was raped". Then get all righteously indignant about that, because taking the real lesson from the principle is just too much work for their brains I guess? But from there this facetious "rape should be legal" thing. I guess trying to offer an absurd counterpoint to balance their absurd misunderstanding?
I'm a bit frustrated with the media for running with the "pro rape" tag - partly because it's not completely accurate, since that argument was facetious, but mostly because its inaccuracy just fuels the grandiose nonconformity that these guys imagine they are so good at. There's plenty of odious nonsense to condemn the group without that - and you could even use "making a facetious pro-rape argument" as one of your reasons.
But "makes facetious and probably harmful pro-rape argument" is bad, and "Supports that jerk who did that" is also bad, and "meets up with likeminded jerks" is bad. Because the whole ethos of the group is about preying on women as objects, denigrating them and using them and adding violent fantasy to the mix all along.
Target: women. Because they are...women. Because they believe all women are like [laundry list of really, really gross stereotypes]
Objective: shame and use and discard them.
And then the response is like "these guys are incredibly creepy and fantasize about doing all kinds of harmful stuff, this makes us really mad, we should go beat them up".
Target: creepy gross guys. Because they have proven themselves creepy and gross.
Objective: Scare them away.
---
I don't know if that's ironic, unless a motivating principle of the response is "don't ever use violence" which I don't actually think is the case. I think it's "this is gross and creepy and oppressive and harmful and it shouldn't be stood for".
You can make an argument that the response is wrong, of course, and I think maybe any violence would have been, but not necessarily ironic.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it entirely facetious to offer an argument that you know won't ever be accepted, and intend as a rhetorical point for another argument...but at the same time, reams and reams of your other rhetoric make it clear you would be thrilled if that argument *were* accepted?
Put more simply, scifi is right and it's facetious. But considering you only have to scratch an inch deep and twenty miles wide to find a lot of...problematic...thoughts on the intersection between men, women, sexuality, and violence. Well. Sure it's facetious though I don't think it's quite as simple as that either.
Anyway, facetious or not, the argument they are making is that sexual violence against women should be legal. That, ethically, they see no problem with the use of violence against women outside the public eye...or if there is a problem it's really the woman's fault.
That certainly reads like a threat to me.
So you've got 'advocacy for violence met with threats of violence'. Doesn't sound ironic to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see any threats of violence coming from RoK's opposition in either article. I see claims from their idiot leader about not being able to secure the meetings, but the only mention of actual opposition activity is peaceful counter protests.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: It's early in the morning so I haven't done much followup, but I'm starting to suspect I was taken in by click-bait.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dogbreath: It's early in the morning so I haven't done much followup, but I'm starting to suspect I was taken in by click-bait.
Can you please at least post the original click-bait article that you read then? As I said, neither article you posted made any mention of threats against the group at all, "explicit" or otherwise.
I'm actually pretty curious why you decided to post that second link and say "it's more explicit here" when in fact neither article had anything explicit, or even suggestive, about threats against the group at all.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Counter violance is good...publicly declare yourself a grand master in ass hat-ery & suffer the threats!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Dogbreath: It's early in the morning so I haven't done much followup, but I'm starting to suspect I was taken in by click-bait.
Can you please at least post the original click-bait article that you read then? As I said, neither article you posted made any mention of threats against the group at all, "explicit" or otherwise.
I'm actually pretty curious why you decided to post that second link and say "it's more explicit here" when in fact neither article had anything explicit, or even suggestive, about threats against the group at all.
The second article *was* more explicit.
"I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time," he said.
"While I can't stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations. I apologise to all the supporters who are let down by my decision."
Whereas once he felt the gatherings were safe and private, now in his opinion they are neither. What else would make them specifically unsafe?
posted
Is that link meant to be an image with a sentence or two beneath it?
Anyway, just to be sure I understand you clearly, part of your objection and criticism about threats of violence was because he said himself they had been received?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, found the article. The only explicit threat on there was from an individual in a tweet. As for the boxing club, they were explicit in that they would not attack anyone, but if any of the men convinced of male superiority wished to prove the question with their bodies, they welcomed it.
All of this aside, for me this extends into the baffling-academic realm of your philosophy of courtesy on contentious political issues, BB. For one thing, do you really believe he didn't expect this sort of response? Noting that the only threats made were by a guy on Twitter in that article, but a huge part of his worldview is that women are running the show, in government, media, and in the culture. He is overtly hostile to women. For the benefit of the doubt let's say he is perceived that way, because it's important we be fair to this shithead.
Anyway, he knows how he is perceived. I personally don't believe he ever intended for these large gatherings, advertised in public on the Internet, to occur as advertised.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: The second article *was* more explicit.
"I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time," he said.
"While I can't stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations. I apologise to all the supporters who are let down by my decision."
Whereas once he felt the gatherings were safe and private, now in his opinion they are neither. What else would make them specifically unsafe? [/QB]
That is not explicit at all. Once again, there is absolutely no part of that - even the leader's own statement - that mentions them being threatened with violence. At all.
Why would he choose to cancel them? He says so himself - the meetings are no longer *private* (because of the media attention) and, not being private, he can no longer guarantee they will be safe. For the same reason having your home address published online or broadcasting your exact location makes you less safe (and hopefully you don't do this) - not because anyone has threatened you, but because the possibility of someone who may want to do violence against you, which would increase exponentially if you were in the national media. It's also the same reason you lock your house when you're away, even though no one has threatened to break into it. That in no way even *implies* they were threatened with violence, and it sure as shit doesn't *explicitly* say they were.
quote:Here is the original article I saw,
Link.
That's not an article, that's a photo of a headline. From an entertainment website. Have you read that article? I have. It actually at no point mentions any threats of violence against the ROK members. Instead it talks about said boxing team planning to hold a peaceful protest of the event in question. It also contains a random tweet by a man saying rapists, not ROK members specifically mind you, but people who actually have raped a woman, deserve be shot. (and not an "I'm going to go shoot rapists" but "ugh, rapists are just awful, they deserve to be shot") The headline is clickbait to get you to read an article which actually has nothing to do with it. I see those all the time with "Obama launches new plan to take guns from veterans" and so forth.
Here's the thing, you decided to post a thread with the title "Masculinists want to legalize rape, get threatened with violence" without supplying *any* evidence whatsoever that those threats of violence were ever actually made. The leader of the ROK has not even made any statements to the effect of "we were threatened" in any way.
For you to infer the possibility threats were made from the leader cancelling the event is, without any evidence, a stretch but maybe an understandable one. For you to blithely assert that those threats actually happened, even after being confronted about the fact that you have presented no evidence that they actually happened, is baffling.
So I guess to answer your original question: the only thing I find ironic about it is that it never actually happened! Plot twist!
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ok, found the article. The only explicit threat on there was from an individual in a tweet. As for the boxing club, they were explicit in that they would not attack anyone, but if any of the men convinced of male superiority wished to prove the question with their bodies, they welcomed it.
All of this aside, for me this extends into the baffling-academic realm of your philosophy of courtesy on contentious political issues, BB. For one thing, do you really believe he didn't expect this sort of response? Noting that the only threats made were by a guy on Twitter in that article, but a huge part of his worldview is that women are running the show, in government, media, and in the culture. He is overtly hostile to women. For the benefit of the doubt let's say he is perceived that way, because it's important we be fair to this shithead.
cross posted with you, but that tweet is actually about "rapists", not "Return of the Kings" members. It's only a threat in as much as you think the two are the same thing.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: That is not explicit at all. Once again, there is absolutely no part of that - even the leader's own statement - that mentions them being threatened with violence. At all.
Why would he choose to cancel them? He says so himself - the meetings are no longer *private* (because of the media attention) and, not being private, he can no longer guarantee they will be safe. For the same reason having your home address published online or broadcasting your exact location makes you less safe (and hopefully you don't do this) - not because anyone has threatened you, but because the possibility of someone who may want to do violence against you, which would increase exponentially if you were in the national media. It's also the same reason you lock your house when you're away, even though no one has threatened to break into it. That in no way even *implies* they were threatened with violence, and it sure as shit doesn't *explicitly* say they were.
quote:Here is the original article I saw,
Link.
That's not an article, that's a photo of a headline. From an entertainment website. Have you read that article? I have. It actually at no point mentions any threats of violence against the ROK members. Instead it talks about said boxing team planning to hold a peaceful protest of the event in question. It also contains a random tweet by a man saying rapists, not ROK members specifically mind you, but people who actually have raped a woman, deserve be shot. (and not an "I'm going to go shoot rapists" but "ugh, rapists are just awful, they deserve to be shot") The headline is clickbait to get you to read an article which actually has nothing to do with it. I see those all the time with "Obama launches new plan to take guns from veterans" and so forth.
Here's the thing, you decided to post a thread with the title "Masculinists want to legalize rape, get threatened with violence" without supplying *any* evidence whatsoever that those threats of violence were ever actually made. The leader of the ROK has not even made any statements to the effect of "we were threatened" in any way.
For you to infer the possibility threats were made from the leader cancelling the event is, without any evidence, a stretch but maybe an understandable one. For you to blithely assert that those threats actually happened, even after being confronted about the fact that you have presented no evidence that they actually happened, is baffling.
So I guess to answer your original question: the only thing I find ironic about it is that it never actually happened! Plot twist!
DB: I will explain what happened. I saw the headline (Whose image I linked) in my Facebook feed, did not read the article at that time (But the seed was planted). I saw other articles in other places like Reddit indicating the same thing. People threatening to beat up pro-rape advocates sounded not only plausible, but probable. I then started seeing articles that the meetings had been cancelled out of concern for safety and privacy.
It was then I posted the article in my post above, not realizing that in that article it was not perfectly clear that threats had actually been made, but in my mind it was now all a cohesive narrative whole. You posted, so I furnished another link that after reading I thought made it more obvious.
You challenged that it doesn't actually say anywhere that violence was threatened. I went back through what I'd read and realized that other than the original headline (From Facebook), that you were right. I then admitted that I had been taken in by click-bait, and produced the original headline. And now, here we are?
Was I hasty in what I posted? Yes. Would I post it again knowing what I know now? No. I'm leaving the thread up because others are discussing. I appreciate being challenged and subsequently finding out I was wrong.
I hope we can let the matter be, unless there is something else you feel is missing.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: DB: I will explain what happened. I saw the headline (Whose image I linked) in my Facebook feed, did not read the article at that time (But the seed was planted). I saw other articles in other places like Reddit indicating the same thing. People threatening to beat up pro-rape advocates sounded not only plausible, but probable. I then started seeing articles that the meetings had been cancelled out of concern for safety and privacy.
It was then I posted the article in my post above, not realizing that in that article it was not perfectly clear that threats had actually been made, but in my mind it was now all a cohesive narrative whole. You posted, so I furnished another link that after reading I thought made it more obvious.
You challenged that it doesn't actually say anywhere that violence was threatened. I went back through what I'd read and realized that other than the original headline (From Facebook), that you were right. I then admitted that I had been taken in by click-bait, and produced the original headline. And now, here we are?
Yes, except your statement is false: this is actually the first post in which you've admitted that. (and only obliquely, in an "I already said it once!" way) What you in fact did was say you were "starting to suspect" you were taken in clickbait, and then in your next post you turned around and doubled down on your argument again talking about how "The second article *was* more explicit" when, as you just finally mention now, you already knew it wasn't.
I'll be honest, I'm growing increasingly frustrated and baffled by your actions here. Quite frankly, I knew from the start that your claim of "threats of violence" was a fabrication, because I saw the same clickbait crap on Facebook and Reddit about half a day before you posted, and then actually read the articles and found no evidence thereof. I asked you questions about your source rather than just saying "BlackBlade you're full of crap" because I didn't want to be a dick, and because I was hopeful you would take the hint and actually try to verify your claims and then do a "haha, whoops, I guess I misread that. Sorry folks!" or something without me having to actually confront you on this. Because I know you don't react well to confrontation, and more importantly, because I didn't want to embarrass you.
But no, I had to ask the questions three times here (and once on Sake, which you ignored) and you chose to double down on your position three times in a row (the last time apparently when you already knew it was wrong) until, with my last post, I had to call you out in no uncertain terms to get you to finally admit the truth - which you then did only obliquely.
Falling for clickbait isn't really the issue. They've gotten me too, especially when it's an issue that is likely to fall into my own preconceived notion of how the world works. I wouldn't hold that against you. Same for rushing into the thread without all your ducks in a row. But this? This weird, passive-aggressive reticence to just say "hey, I messed up"? That's how you lose people's trust.
I suppose I could have just said "hey, yeah, it's fine! " and left it at that, and I have before. And I wouldn't be surprised or even disappointed if you just think I'm being a sanctimonious asshole and dismiss what I'm saying here out of hand. Goodness knows I'm no saint or moral authority on the subject. But it is my honest takeaway from your actions here, and I think that that honesty is something that not many people would be willing to give you.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dogbreath: I appreciate your continuing this conversation when it's clear there were still things left unsaid. I'm trying to level with you, but it seems to only be making things worse. I will try again.
quote:I then admitted that I had been taken in by click-bait, and produced the original headline. And now, here we are?Yes, except your statement is false: this is actually the first post in which you've admitted that. (and only obliquely, in an "I already said it once!" way)
I can see why the way I phrased this sounds like what you just described. Being forthright, that is a feeling I was experiencing when I wrote my post. But, I then went through and edited all those things I thought were conveying that feeling because it was wrong of me. The wording "And here we are?" Was ultimately intended to convey "Did I describe our journey here accurately?" I accept full responsibility for leaving something in that ambiguous.
quote:What you in fact did was say you were "starting to suspect" you were taken in clickbait, and then in your next post you turned around and doubled down on your argument again talking about how "The second article *was* more explicit" when, as you just finally mention now, you already knew it wasn't.
I hate to dispel my being disingenuous by pleading sincerity when it's clear to me you *really* don't think the article is as explicit as I do. Call into question my reading comprehension, if you must. I thought the quotes from the leader of ROK all but spelled out threats of violence being made. Right or wrong, that's how I perceived it when I was posting. I am willing to concede that it is not *actually* stated. That you were right.
quote:I'll be honest, I'm growing increasingly frustrated and baffled by your actions here. Quite frankly, I knew from the start that your claim of "threats of violence" was a fabrication, because I saw the same clickbait crap on Facebook and Reddit about half a day before you posted, and then actually read the articles and found no evidence thereof. I asked you questions about your source rather than just saying "BlackBlade you're full of crap" because I didn't want to be a dick, and because I was hopeful you would take the hint and actually try to verify your claims and then do a "haha, whoops, I guess I misread that. Sorry folks!" or something without me having to actually confront you on this. Because I know you don't react well to confrontation, and more importantly, because I didn't want to embarrass you.
Then let me say it now. I didn't carefully look into my sources, I posted too hastily, I responded to your subsequent posts too hastily, when I attempted to make things right I failed to edit so that all elements of aggression in my post were gone.
quote:But no, I had to ask the questions three times here (and once on Sake, which you ignored)
I *honestly* thought by posting here I would be addressing your post on Sake, since this place is the origin of our conversation. It did not occur to me to go back to Sake and redirect you here. And certainly continuing there would have made things confusing here. For that failure in communication I am truly sorry. I don't like giving you cause to feel ignored, and I've done so a few times.
quote:I had to call you out in no uncertain terms to get you to finally admit the truth - which you then did only obliquely.
Consider that I was not seeing the truth you were trying to present to me, until I did. I promise you I was not writing knowing full well you were right but refusing to concede the point(s). I'm not so vain as that.
quote:Falling for clickbait isn't really the issue. They've gotten me too, especially when it's an issue that is likely to fall into my own preconceived notion of how the world works. I wouldn't hold that against you. Same for rushing into the thread without all your ducks in a row. But this? This weird, passive-aggressive reticence to just say "hey, I messed up"? That's how you lose people's trust.
I hope my explanation undercuts you feeling that I was being passive-aggressive. I know you are an honest and forthright person. I put a lot of stock in being honest and direct in communication. One thing though, I don't find conflict disagreeable. Why on Earth would I ever sign up to be a moderator if I did? But I do try very hard not to give or take offense.
To the extent my writings came across as my refusing to admit being wrong and coming across as aggressive, I am sorry.
quote:I suppose I could have just said "hey, yeah, it's fine! [Smile] " and left it at that, and I have before. And I wouldn't be surprised or even disappointed if you just think I'm being a sanctimonious asshole and dismiss what I'm saying here out of hand. Goodness knows I'm no saint or moral authority on the subject. But it is my honest takeaway from your actions here, and I think that that honesty is something that not many people would be willing to give you.
I haven't once thought of you as being sanctimonious, and I seek to be unafraid of being criticized or wrong. It has happened before, it will happen again. I *did* feel confused because it felt like you were determined to be angry at me, when I felt there was no cause for it. Having said that, I think I understand better why you felt frustrated with me, and I'm sorry for it.
I'm sad that you felt that I would likely dismiss what you would say out of hand. Clearly I have not given you cause enough to trust that I care and listen to what you have to say. I'll try to do better in the future.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
DB, it looks a bit like you're trying to make sure BB can't save any face in this discussion, and I'm not sure why that would be your goal. Am I misunderstanding you?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Because I realize my lack of response may make it looks like I'm deliberately snubbing BlackBlade's apology here: after his last post, at his request BB and I had a private conversation where we continued and resolved this discussion, much to our mutual satisfaction.)
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did see someone threaten to follow them with tubas and possible sad trombones to make them look foolish.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: Since you're interested in keeping the thread open, I wanted to follow up on the question Rakeesh asked you earlier, which I'm curious about as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this has been a constant theme with you. Whenever there's a conflict between an oppressor and victim in any case (and I've seen this with you as wide spread as homophobia, sexism, racism, the riots in Baltimore, parents of gay kids who kick them out of the house...) your first and, it often seems, only concern is policing the response of the victims and/or bystanders against the oppressors. Even in cases where that response is mostly or entirely hypothetical, you seem to hone in on the issue of "isn't it terrible that not everyone is being perfectly courteous and generous and longsuffering towards this horrible person?"
I ask this because that attitude is the same one that's been used by those in power to bully and silence those being oppressed for about as long as there have been oppressors and oppressed. The oppressor is given broad range as far as how they're allowed to control and harm those they oppress: in modern times, telling them who they can and can't marry, or by arresting or even murdering them in disproportionate numbers, or by telling them whether or not they can buy enough food to feed their children. But the oppressed and their advocates must always be perfect gentlemen and ladies when speaking truth to power, indeed lots of people of the same class as the oppressors will chide and correct them whenever they step outside of whatever narrow boundaries defined for them *by* the oppressor class.
Which leads me to ask: why? Why is this so important to you? I mean, you have a group of men who believe in dehumanizing and infantilizing women, in "negging" and manipulating them, treating them as extensions of their desire... men who represent every dark and antisocial and rapine instinct that we as civilized human beings have sought to overcome. Men who, if given their way, would gleefully oppress half of humanity just to satisfy their own insatiable ego. And your takeaway from learning about their rallies is to worry about alleged threats against them?
I'm not trying to pick on you, and I realize this is a fight you've had to fight all by yourself on a lot of occasions, so please don't think I'm not sympathetic. But this is something I don't really understand about you, and I think Rakeesh is fair to question the underlying issue here. Why are issues like this so important to you?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to clarify, and because I recognize that this is often a stance you take by yourself against a lot of opposition, BB, my perception is that a substantial part of the reason (at the very least) isn't that it's your only or primary concern, but that your position about being kinder to jerks (an oversimplification I know) isn't one that's getting represented.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just to clarify, and because I recognize that this is often a stance you take by yourself against a lot of opposition, BB, my perception is that a substantial part of the reason (at the very least) isn't that it's your only or primary concern, but that your position about being kinder to jerks (an oversimplification I know) isn't one that's getting represented.
That's definitely a huge part of it. And partially because I've had my foot in my mouth enough times because I thought, "I've got this issue down, and it's clear I should be angry at this person/issue".
There's a third reason that in the past historically it's very rare for an issue to be obvious, and even when it is people often excuse terrible behavior in the cause of doing what's right, but I'm having a devil of a time articulating it, so I'll just leave it be for now.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm. I will say that your reasons listed there-prudent skepticism about being right, wariness of overstepping into bad behavior-those are reasons I can certainly understand. But to my recollection, when having these sorts of discussions before, they didn't really feature in your explanations. My perception has been that your stance on Courtesy (to use shorthand) has largely been because you feel it is an obligation all people have and should live up to, and further that it is what is going to be effective anyway. Of course I could be misremembering some or all of that, as that kind of recollection is often really suspect.
But to stick specifically to the reasons you just posted, I don't quite see how they all apply, except perhaps in the abstract cautionary way. I mean, there isn't any real doubt that these RoK dudes and various allies are shitheads, right? Not only are their politics reprehensible, but they do very real damage to the significant issues related to the question 'what is the modern male role in society and in families, and what should the law think about it?'
On a related note, I'd like to ask about threats of violence, both explicit and implicit. To me, the position even if it's facetious that rape should be legal on private property is at least an implicit threat of violence. It's not like ordinary political advocacy because ordinary political advocacy doesn't include 'we should get to do violence to people, not in self-defense' anywhere. Much less as its main objective.
As an example: to me, and to (in my opinion) any civilized American, the fact of rape in our jail and prison system is laid at our feet as Americans and it is a disgrace. The fact of our general indifference to it as a nation is as bad or worse. I think part of the reason this happens is because, to us as a society, rape is generally something men do to women. It's a crime that has a very specific trajectory, from men to women. I think advocacy such as that of RoK plays into that, and helps make it more difficult to have a serious discussion about modernizing our national understanding of rape, who does it, where, and to whom it is done.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmmmm. I will say that your reasons listed there-prudent skepticism about being right, wariness of overstepping into bad behavior-those are reasons I can certainly understand. But to my recollection, when having these sorts of discussions before, they didn't really feature in your explanations.
I've never fully explained how I've arrived at where I am at the present day? That's not so surprising is it?
quote: My perception has been that your stance on Courtesy (to use shorthand) has largely been because you feel it is an obligation all people have and should live up to, and further that it is what is going to be effective anyway.
Also that it's *really difficult* because by nature humans generally react negatively to unfamiliar and confusing beliefs that are different from previously held ones.[/quote]
quote:On a related note, I'd like to ask about threats of violence, both explicit and implicit. To me, the position even if it's facetious that rape should be legal on private property is at least an implicit threat of violence. It's not like ordinary political advocacy because ordinary political advocacy doesn't include 'we should get to do violence to people, not in self-defense' anywhere. Much less as its main objective.
OK. Let's grant the position itself is seeking violence.
quote:As an example: to me, and to (in my opinion) any civilized American, the fact of rape in our jail and prison system is laid at our feet as Americans and it is a disgrace. The fact of our general indifference to it as a nation is as bad or worse. I think part of the reason this happens is because, to us as a society, rape is generally something men do to women. It's a crime that has a very specific trajectory, from men to women. I think advocacy such as that of RoK plays into that, and helps make it more difficult to have a serious discussion about modernizing our national understanding of rape, who does it, where, and to whom it is done.
So you are saying their position worsens an existent problem?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just to clarify, and because I recognize that this is often a stance you take by yourself against a lot of opposition, BB, my perception is that a substantial part of the reason (at the very least) isn't that it's your only or primary concern, but that your position about being kinder to jerks (an oversimplification I know) isn't one that's getting represented.
That's definitely a huge part of it. And partially because I've had my foot in my mouth enough times because I thought, "I've got this issue down, and it's clear I should be angry at this person/issue".
There's a third reason that in the past historically it's very rare for an issue to be obvious, and even when it is people often excuse terrible behavior in the cause of doing what's right, but I'm having a devil of a time articulating it, so I'll just leave it be for now.
I would say I totally understand and agree with the point of adopting civility and turning the other cheek is totally understandable as a personal philosophy, as well as one you could extol other people to follow. For example, I would personally not make any threats against these RoK members because I don't believe violence is the right answer, and I think almost everyone in this thread would agree with you there. (I'm not sure if SW's "counter-violence is good!" point was sarcasm or not, thus the "almost")
And likewise, if there was someone here advocating for such violence, I would be the first person to debate them and try to convince them that's an unacceptable response. That holds *especially* true if they were, say, advocating for passing a law making free expression of reprehensible ideas illegal. (unless those ideas cross over into actually harming people)
But in this case, and in the cases I mention, it goes beyond that level. Instead it seems like you feel a sense of injustice in the fact that someone may (actually or hypothetically) make threats against people like this, or boycott their products, or protest their leadership in an organization, or even in some cases just criticize a church they belong to that turns a blind eye to their behavior. And that's what I have difficulty with.
In this case in particular, the womens boxing club was actually doing something quite brave and noble by peacefully protesting the RoK rally, because there were a lot of women who were afraid to protest these guys due to their advocation of violence against women and so they stepped into the gap to make the point of "we're not afraid of you." That's exactly the sort of courage (and I definitely think the risk to these women was non-zero), even in the face of violence, that I think is needed to confront evil and effect meaningful change in this world.
And a lot of people responded to that by willfully (or I accept in your case accidentally) misinterpreting their actions and shitting all over them, for daring to stand up to bullies in a way they disapproved of. You see this happen all the time. It happened during the civil rights movement, especially against Malcolm X. It happened on a national level with gay marriage, with the point being "they're trying to force gay marriage on us!" It's this idea that any action on the part of the oppressed to stand up to the oppressor must be scrutinized, and even if it's entirely benign and peaceful it will be warped into being a threat, to justified continued oppression.
So I guess I understand the "don't demonize the people on the wrong side of history" aspect, and I completely agree with and respect that. You won't find any disagreement with me there. But when that extends to "lets carefully tone police any expression of defiance or rage on the part of those being harmed or oppressed by those on the wrong side of history", you lose me.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:(I'm not sure if SW's "counter-violence is good!" point was sarcasm or not, thus the "almost")
It's SO easy to have miscommunications without body language & tone that I only use sarcasm in posts with [sarcasm][sarcasm/] tags.
I'm cool with these fellers being threatened. While I generally do not condone violence in response to discussion, in this case I would shed as many tears if harm befell them as, say...if a big, dumb, dangerous animal happened to have an unfortunate accident...some sorrow at life lost, but also relief that no collateral damage was done.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But in this case, and in the cases I mention, it goes beyond that level. Instead it seems like you feel a sense of injustice in the fact that someone may (actually or hypothetically) make threats against people like this, or boycott their products, or protest their leadership in an organization, or even in some cases just criticize a church they belong to that turns a blind eye to their behavior. And that's what I have difficulty with.
Depending on the circumstance I will or will not feel a sense of injustice as to how people sanction others with opinions they don't like.
Where we draw the line is probably different, and hence the difficulty understanding why the other draws that line differently, even if we agree the lines should exist.
quote:In this case in particular, the womens boxing club was actually doing something quite brave and noble by peacefully protesting the RoK rally, because there were a lot of women who were afraid to protest these guys due to their advocation of violence against women and so they stepped into the gap to make the point of "we're not afraid of you." That's exactly the sort of courage (and I definitely think the risk to these women was non-zero), even in the face of violence, that I think is needed to confront evil and effect meaningful change in this world.
You may be misunderstanding me. The original headline I read (whose image I linked) I know discusses the boxing club's activities. I only read *that* article after posting. As I presently understand their activities, I have no issues with any of them.
My issue was only with perceived people actively threatening to commit violence against ROK protesters.
I don't have any issue with protests or counter-protests.
I recall reading about a biker gang that escorted bullied kids to school. I'm absolutely fine with others using the implied threat of force as a means of expressing, "We won't let you hurt us."
quote:So I guess I understand the "don't demonize the people on the wrong side of history" aspect, and I completely agree with and respect that. You won't find any disagreement with me there. But when that extends to "lets carefully tone police any expression of defiance or rage on the part of those being harmed or oppressed by those on the wrong side of history", you lose me.
I want all causes including my own to always be on the right side of the law, ethics, and decency.
I get that appeals to decency are used as a means to stall righteous causes.
"It's not the right time." "You push too hard." "The people aren't ready." "You are making people uncomfortable."
Our zeal can often sweep us away into seeing all others who don't see as we do as obstacles. I've seen it time and time again. When I was a missionary I would often see new converts who just a few months ago were telling me how ancient and correct their religion was compared to mine, now converted to Christianity and so excited about it that all Taoist and Buddhist must be idiots or moral degenerates to believe in it.
People who supported Proposition 8, now seeing the light and calling all those who still support like measures homophobes, bigots, or worse.
The American revolution was a wonderful thing in my mind, but the Boston Tea Party was disgraceful, the forced exile of loyalists after the war to Canada was disgraceful. Both of those things are still largely today unknown or actively celebrated because the revolution is so sacred in our memories that we let it sanctify just about everything associated with it.
That's what I fear. A cause being so just that we countenance even bad behavior because we call it necessary. When we say, "Well they have a right to be angry so their looting a town is an understandable expression of their rage."
When does that stop?
"These #BlackLivesMatter students are so angry at injustice they have a right force you bodily out of their safe space."
I know I come across to you as trying to control and stifle dissent with tone policing. But in my heart what I want it to stop people from letting their causes become tainted and corrupted by hatred.
I grew up in China, and justified hatred consumed their country for so many years. It resulted in the harming and murdering of millions of people, and irreversibly damaged and destroyed the most ancient culture in history. But it all started out as, "The Imperialists oppressed us for centuries, the Nationalists want to stifle our revolutionary fervor, they must be swept out of the way. The people's anger in this matter must be allowed to express itself."
Maybe that's paranoid, but I think people are often easily whipped into anger, and then into a frenzy. And not so easily kept in a cool collected state of action. Why else were King and Malcolm X so certain that if a single police man was killed, hundreds of them would be killed in response?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not addressing the entirety of your post, but as to the last paragraph it wasn't a theory in the case of police/African-American violence. Experience rather than an understanding of human nature taught that lesson.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not addressing the entirety of your post, but as to the last paragraph it wasn't a theory in the case of police/African-American violence. Experience rather than an understanding of human nature taught that lesson.
Well of course experience taught them that. The experience is what gives rise to the theory.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:And a lot of people responded to that by willfully (or I accept in your case accidentally) misinterpreting their actions and shitting all over them, for daring to stand up to bullies in a way they disapproved of. You see this happen all the time. It happened during the civil rights movement, especially against Malcolm X. It happened on a national level with gay marriage, with the point being "they're trying to force gay marriage on us!" It's this idea that any action on the part of the oppressed to stand up to the oppressor must be scrutinized, and even if it's entirely benign and peaceful it will be warped into being a threat, to justified continued oppression.
I'm making a somewhat more subtle point here that I think you're missing: the suspicion/fear of the oppressed actually acting out violently is often entirely independent of whether or not it actually happens. And that *fear* itself is used as a tool of the oppressors to justify maintaining the status quo.
Consider the whole "the gays are trying to force their lifestyle on us!" hysteria. I met people, several people actually, who somehow believed that legalizing gay marriage would pave the way to "gay indoctrination" in schools, and would cause the destruction of traditional marriage. There was widespread talk of a "gay agenda", and many, many people in the US earnestly believed that gay marriage was an attempt to oppress God-fearing straight married people. Heck, Marco Rubio uses that fear in one of his campaign ads - he talks about "millions of people in traditional families live in fear of being labelled as bigots for their beliefs."
How many cases were there of gay people trying to convert or oppress straight people? I confess to not having done the research, but I'm guessing from the lack of news stories about it probably small enough to be statistically negligible. That didn't stop that fear from being widespread, though.
Same for the RoK thing. Did threats of violence actually happen? Not as far as I know. (unless there's been something new since the last time I researched it) Yet a few BS clickbait headlines got a decent number of people convinced that it really did. Why? It's like you said in your explanation, it sounds plausible. The fear of feminist extremists doing violence against men is enough of a cultural fear we share that it seems perfectly plausible to you, or at least didn't ring that "that doesn't sound right..." bell in your head.
And I'm not picking on you or anyone else for believing it (sorry if using this case as an example is uncomfortable, I can generalize it more if you prefer), because God knows I fall for stuff like that too. I'm trying to get at a bigger point here. Let me try and illustrate the inverse using a clickbait I saw last month:
Let's say I posted a thread here titled "Mormon Church Secretly Supports Overthrow of US Government!" This would in fact be an extremely... imaginative interpretation of Ammon Bundy claiming his Bishop gave his blessing to hold his little insurrection. (IIRC, said bishop was later like "noooo, I just said something like 'I understand why you're really upset about this' or whatever", it doesn't matter what exactly since this is a hypothetical lie I would be telling anyway) I'm *pretty* sure your first reaction wouldn't be to take it at face value and start discussing it, but instead would be "um, your source doesn't actually say that at all", and maybe try and figure out how on Earth I came to this bizarre conclusion.
Why? Because the LDS Church doing something like this seems incredulous to you, and you would certainly want substantial evidence it happened before just accepting it as reality. Which is a good thing. Other friends of mine who have somewhat dimmer opinions of the LDS Church (if they know anything at all about it) on the other hand have no problem jumping on articles like that and saying "AHA! Mormons! I knew it!" and posting them all over Facebook.
But a headline about feminists threatening to beat up "masculinists"? You buy that right away. it seems plausible to you. And I submit that plausibility has *nothing* to do with being an accurate representation of reality, because in reality feminists beating up, or even threatening to beat up, misogynistic men is rare enough that I can't remember the last time I saw an article about it outside of maybe the facetious "kill all men" twitter posts. Especially when compared to the threats of violence or actual violence perpetuated by misogynistic men against women.
It seems less "a cause being so just that we countenance even bad behavior because we call it necessary" and more a system in place that has taught you to fear and condemn any sign of that "bad behavior", even when it's mostly non-existent or the responsibility of a radical or largely non-associated group. (like the riots you mentioned)
And it's that fear, which I recognize within myself too with a lot of my gut reactions to incidents like this, is exactly what helps perpetuate these cycles of injustice. I figure in any dynamic like this, you have maybe 1-5% of the oppressor class actually doing the actual oppressing, and the other 95%+ of the shmucks who stand by and let it happen because of that fear.
But French Revolution style massacres like you mention happen only when the oppression goes on long enough that violence becomes the *only* recourse, and then it gets carried away really, really freaking fast. A group succeeding in coming out from oppression when they can do after peaceful discourse and with the aid of a lot of the oppressor class does *not* start committing crimes of revenge against the oppressors once they're in power. How many gay terrorists do you see killing/attacking straight families now that gay marriage is legal? That fear never came to pass, and it sure as hell wasn't because of people lecturing gay people whenever they were discourteous to those who tried to disenfranchise them.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:happen only when the oppression goes on long enough that violence becomes the *only* recourse, and then it gets carried away really, really freaking fast.
There is one more prerequisite: That the instruments of oppression, usually the armed forces, must become ineffective or disaffected. If Louis had had some loyal troops and a ruthless commander, as the Republic did, the mob of Paris would not have dragged him to the guillotine. Grapeshot is the original means of riot control, and still the best.
That raises the question of what happens when the instruments of "oppression" are actually mainly words. Tweets can hurt, but what they cannot do is stop a mob (I mean a real one with sticks and stones, not a metaphorical one with Facebook posts and keyboards) coming down the street.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, nice to see you! How have you been? I would say it depends on the words and the power of the people using those words. "Don't hire Mexicans." "Don't rent to blacks." "Girls can't do math". All those can certainly lead to oppression when spoken by enough bosses, landlords, and teachers.
I am still, by the way, delighted to be supporting your charity.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But French Revolution style massacres like you mention happen only when the oppression goes on long enough that violence becomes the *only* recourse, and then it gets carried away really, really freaking fast. A group succeeding in coming out from oppression when they can do after peaceful discourse and with the aid of a lot of the oppressor class does *not* start committing crimes of revenge against the oppressors once they're in power. How many gay terrorists do you see killing/attacking straight families now that gay marriage is legal? That fear never came to pass, and it sure as hell wasn't because of people lecturing gay people whenever they were discourteous to those who tried to disenfranchise them.
So acts of violence are not a serious concern when it comes to gay rights. Alright, I'll agree to that. But you brought up my defense of Brendan Eich when he was forced to resign because of his political contributions. You also take issue with virtually all my attempts to express dismay when IMO people unjustly punish other people.
I can concede that I can't predict the future, so maybe the which hunt for Prop 8 supporters stops with Eich, maybe I'm speaking against an injustice that will never really materialize.
There were actual riots over #BlackLivesMatter. Will there be more? I hope not. I also hope the systemic oppression of African Americans ceases, and will do what I can to speak out against it.
But like Rakeesh says, often times I feel alone in speaking for people to leave their hatred of their opponents behind, I don't really get to talk about police brutality because we all basically agree it's awful. So I shift to the things I feel are unspoken, much to the chagrin of others who think I'm ignoring the deeper truths.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: …I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
Almost 50 years ago. Honestly, I think there may need to be more rioting. Goodness knows we don't pay attention otherwise. When was the last time any of us thought about Freddie Gray?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, nice to see you! How have you been? I would say it depends on the words and the power of the people using those words. "Don't hire Mexicans." "Don't rent to blacks." "Girls can't do math". All those can certainly lead to oppression when spoken by enough bosses, landlords, and teachers.
I am still, by the way, delighted to be supporting your charity.
I've been fine, thanks; I've sold out to the dark side and gotten a tech job.
I opine that there is a difference between "Girls cannot do math" and "Girls are not allowed to do math on pain of having acid thrown in their faces". Unpleasant as the first may be, it is not oppression. Which is not to say it shouldn't be a concern, but let us use language correctly. Being told "You don't have the ability to X" allows the simple and non-violent counter of demonstrating that you damn well do. Being threatened with acid does not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: So acts of violence are not a serious concern when it comes to gay rights. Alright, I'll agree to that. But you brought up my defense of Brendan Eich when he was forced to resign because of his political contributions. You also take issue with virtually all my attempts to express dismay when IMO people unjustly punish other people.
I can concede that I can't predict the future, so maybe the which hunt for Prop 8 supporters stops with Eich, maybe I'm speaking against an injustice that will never really materialize.
You and I actually disagree on whether what happened to Eich was a "witch hunt" or not.
The man actively supported disenfranchising and oppressing people for being gay. He moved beyond mere words, as KoM put it, and was actively trying to get the law changed to deny a basic human right to an entire class of people. In response to him being made the head of Mozilla, people (very rightly IMO) expressed their dismay by choosing not to use his company's products, and it caused enough of a stir that he chose to step down. (Again, no indication he was "forced" to resign)
You calling people making the choice not to use Firefox because they don't want to support Mozilla's CEO's bigotry an injustice or a "witch hunt" is what I consider mind blowing. That is, quite frankly, not unjust. That is exactly what good and moral people *do*, they make the choice not to support injustice. Like in your worldview, the only "just" solution to this would be for everyone to pretend to ignore that Eich was a bigot and used his money to harm others, and continue to use Mozilla products anyway. No, that's not how a free society works Eich is free to spend his money and support whatever awful causes he wants, and others are free to *not* support him in return.
quote:There were actual riots over #BlackLivesMatter.
Are you saying that the #BlackLivesMatter movement started riots, BB? Or are you saying there were riots that happened to take place in response to events BLM was protesting? Those are two profoundly different claims, and if it's the first I'd be interested in seeing your source for it.
quote:Will there be more? I hope not. I also hope the systemic oppression of African Americans ceases, and will do what I can to speak out against it.
But like Rakeesh says, often times I feel alone in speaking for people to leave their hatred of their opponents behind, I don't really get to talk about police brutality because we all basically agree it's awful. So I shift to the things I feel are unspoken, much to the chagrin of others who think I'm ignoring the deeper truths.
I think you often, like in the Eich case, misinterpret people expressing disapproval for an unjust cause as hatred of an opponent. I saw little hatred there, but a lot of "hey, maybe we shouldn't support an organization that makes a bigot their CEO."
I also think you're unusually defensive of those who supported prop 8 or were part of NOM as opposed to other forms of bigotry. Like if tomorrow, say news broke that Tim Cook is actually a member of the KKK and had been giving money to support them and their causes, would you be surprised if there were boycotts of Apple products as a result? Would you call it an injustice if he eventually chose to resign under that pressure?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I've been fine, thanks; I've sold out to the dark side and gotten a tech job.
I opine that there is a difference between "Girls cannot do math" and "Girls are not allowed to do math on pain of having acid thrown in their faces". Unpleasant as the first may be, it is not oppression. Which is not to say it shouldn't be a concern, but let us use language correctly. Being told "You don't have the ability to X" allows the simple and non-violent counter of demonstrating that you damn well do. Being threatened with acid does not.
I think in all the cases we're talking about, it involves actual oppression or the support thereof. Rape is an act of physical violence, and therefore rape culture and the support thereof is indeed a form of oppression. Denying gay people civil rights by law is an form of oppression. A culture where the police are far more likely to shoot a black person without just cause, prosecutors are far more likely to recommend harsher sentences, and judges are far more likely to convict black people is definitely oppression.
I would argue a society where "girls can not do math" is reinforced from primary school on, up to bullying or belittling of women in math or engineering programs in university and workplace environments can definitely be oppressive, especially for women whose careers depend on their competency in "doing math." It's not a physical oppression (like shooting an unarmed black man in the back is), though, so it makes sense that the response to it isn't nearly as violent as others.
Likewise, if these RoK men were actually going around beating up and raping women instead of saying "gee, wouldn't it be nice if that were legal", you were probably (understandably) see a more violent reaction to their rallies.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The man actively supported disenfranchising and oppressing people for being gay. He moved beyond mere words, as KoM put it, and was actively trying to get the law changed to deny a basic human right to an entire class of people. In response to him being made the head of Mozilla, people (very rightly IMO) expressed their dismay by choosing not to use his company's products, and it caused enough of a stir that he chose to step down. (Again, no indication he was "forced" to resign)
Mozilla's FAQ notes that Eich stepped down as a result of pressure. He could not remain as CEO and Mozilla survive. He felt forced to resign because absent the public pressure including Mozilla employees he would have stayed on.
quote: You calling people making the choice not to use Firefox because they don't want to support Mozilla's CEO's bigotry an injustice or a "witch hunt" is what I consider mind blowing.
Probably because I never said that. I said that employees publicly clamoring for a CEOs resignation without using the internal apparatus to voice grievances, is a witch hunt.
I said,
"...Expressing concerns is a very normal productive thing. Calling for somebody's resignation on a social media site is not an appropriate way to express concerns with your company's choice in CEOs, even if your concern is legitimate (In this case I don't think it is). If you can, you speak to the person privately. If you can't you apply upward pressure by speaking to your manager and having them relay your concerns down the chain. You circulate a petition within the office, secure signatures, and then send it up.
But it would be inappropriate to call for somebody's resignation purely on the strength of one political position. Was Mr. Eich failing to do the job? Was he disparaging other employee's beliefs? Was he trying to get employees to take a position on that issue? No, he was doing his job. He was asked to be CEO. They didn't ask him to resign when his donation was made public years ago."
I later specifically said I have no problem with consumers voicing their dissent by refusing to use Firefox. Or even OKCupid's decision to detect what browsers people were using and directing Firefox users to a page that expressed their discontent.
edit: I *do* have a problem with people elevating one political issue as sacrosanct and therefore justifying lots of actions they would never condone were other similar ethical issues at stake. For example, nobody would demand a CEO's resignation because they donated to Planned Parenthood, therefore he/she has aided and abetted the murder of human beings.
quote:I *do* have a problem with people elevating one political issue as sacrosanct and therefore justifying lots of actions they would never condone were other similar ethical issues at stake.
My wife and I were watching 13th & Main (?) a documentary on HBO about an abortion clinic & pro life anti abortion clinic. These pro lifers were willing to do/say ANYTHING to "save babies". They would lie to the girls about who they were & offer a free ultrasound & then lie about their due date so the mother thought she had time to think before getting an abortion when they did not. Horror show.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, people absolutely would demand exactly that. See: basically every story about PP right now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I was responding to a post of yours saying that doesn't happen, BB. If you meant 'nobody reasonable would take them seriously', that would be one thing (though plenty of people otherwise regarded as reasonable *do* become positively hysterical on that subject), but you said no one did that.
If that was an incomplete thought, no big deal. If it was, however, it would seem to me that it points to the sort of unconscious partisan blinders others have spoken about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
" and left it at that, and I have before. And I wouldn't be surprised or even disappointed if you just think I'm being a sanctimonious asshole and dismiss what I'm saying here out of hand. Goodness knows I'm no saint or moral authority on the subject. But it is my honest takeaway from your actions here, and I think that that honesty is something that not many people would be willing to give you.
